nw-review-output-format
YAML output format and approval criteria for platform design reviews. Load when generating review feedback.
Best use case
nw-review-output-format is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
YAML output format and approval criteria for platform design reviews. Load when generating review feedback.
Teams using nw-review-output-format should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/nw-review-output-format/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How nw-review-output-format Compares
| Feature / Agent | nw-review-output-format | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
YAML output format and approval criteria for platform design reviews. Load when generating review feedback.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Platform Review Output Format
## YAML Structure
```yaml
review_id: "platform_rev_{timestamp}"
reviewer: "nw-platform-architect-reviewer (Atlas)"
artifact_reviewed: "{path to platform design documents}"
review_date: "{ISO 8601 timestamp}"
external_validity_check:
deployment_path_complete: "{PASS/FAIL}"
observability_enabled: "{PASS/FAIL}"
rollback_capability: "{PASS/FAIL}"
security_gates_present: "{PASS/FAIL}"
overall_status: "{PASS/FAIL/BLOCKER}"
blocking_issues:
- "{issue description if any}"
strengths:
- category: "{pipeline/infrastructure/deployment/observability/security}"
description: "{what is done well}"
evidence: "{specific example from design}"
issues_identified:
- id: 1
category: "{pipeline/infrastructure/deployment/observability/security}"
dimension: "{critique dimension name}"
severity: "{blocker/critical/high/medium/low}"
description: "{clear description}"
impact: "{consequence if not addressed}"
recommendation: "{specific, actionable fix}"
evidence: "{where in the design this was found}"
dora_metrics_assessment:
deployment_frequency_enabled: "{yes/no/partial}"
lead_time_achievable: "{yes/no/partial}"
change_failure_rate_trackable: "{yes/no/partial}"
time_to_restore_measurable: "{yes/no/partial}"
assessment_notes: "{specific observations}"
priority_validation:
largest_bottleneck_addressed: "{YES/NO/UNCLEAR}"
simple_alternatives_documented: "{ADEQUATE/INADEQUATE/MISSING}"
constraint_prioritization: "{CORRECT/INVERTED/NOT_ANALYZED}"
verdict: "{PASS/FAIL}"
recommendations:
immediate:
- "{must fix before approval}"
short_term:
- "{should fix soon}"
long_term:
- "{consider for future improvement}"
approval_status: "{approved/rejected_pending_revisions/conditionally_approved}"
conditions_for_approval:
- "{condition if conditionally_approved}"
```
## Approval Criteria
**Approved**: No blocker or critical issues. High issues acknowledged with timeline.
**Conditionally approved**: No blockers. Critical issues have mitigation plan. High issues documented for follow-up.
**Rejected (pending revisions)**: Any blocker present | multiple critical issues without mitigation | external validity check failed.Related Skills
nw-tr-review-criteria
Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment
nw-tdd-review-enforcement
Test design mandate enforcement, test budget validation, 5-phase TDD validation, and external validity checks for the software crafter reviewer
nw-sc-review-dimensions
Reviewer critique dimensions for peer review - implementation bias detection, test quality validation, completeness checks, and priority validation
nw-roadmap-review-checks
Roadmap-specific validation checks for architecture reviews. Load when reviewing roadmaps for implementation readiness.
nw-review
Dispatches an expert reviewer agent to critique workflow artifacts. Use when a roadmap, implementation, or step needs quality review before proceeding.
nw-review-workflow
Detailed review process, v2 validation checklist, and scoring methodology for agent definition reviews
nw-por-review-criteria
Review dimensions and bug patterns for journey artifact reviews
nw-po-review-dimensions
Requirements quality critique dimensions for peer review - confirmation bias detection, completeness validation, clarity checks, testability assessment, and priority validation
nw-pdr-review-criteria
Evidence quality validation and decision gate criteria for product discovery reviews
nw-par-review-criteria
Quality dimensions and review checklist for devop reviews
nw-dr-review-criteria
Critique dimensions, severity framework, verdict decision matrix, and review output format for documentation assessment reviews
nw-diverger-review-criteria
Review criteria for the nw-diverger-reviewer — validates JTBD rigor, research quality, option diversity, taste application correctness, and recommendation coherence in DIVERGE wave artifacts